Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A white person working in a factory could quit and go west anytime they felt like it.
A black person couldn't do that until...........1965.
Try again.
How were you supposed to get there if you worked in a factory? The system which made factories so profitable was paying the very minimum to only those who could work. If the family included small children, and grandparents, that money had to feed them too, and help keep a roof over their head (usually a single room). Those who could work thought hard about anything which might be seen as a complaint since it meant even that small payment wasn't there. People did starve in the ghettos where they lived.
And what are you refering to as 'west'? In post Revolutionary times, it was Ohio and Pensulvania and the states next to the ones along the coast. Yes, more people made it to Kentucky than Oregon who were poor, but it was closer. It could be walked. Not only did white escapees from indentures and convict status run there, but so did blacks. It was a place it was hard to catch the runaway.
Later, areas like Pennsulvania became the 'west'. They were also close. If you were trapped in Maryland it was easy to get to.
Generally this is a migration but not a *western* migration. My great grandmother's first husband took her west. He was a mining engineer but he didn't like being around people. He'd be gone for months, leaving her alone. She lost three children one night when she was alone and buried them herself. I had imagined something like New Mexico at least. No, it was the area which became Iowa and Missouri. Before the civil war, that was 'west'. In the south, the area which became Georgia was 'west' and was settled largely by people who were able to travel light.
But the difference was even then if you were a factory worker with a family to keep alive, you couldn't get there. It cost money. It was too far to walk and you needed to have supplies, probably a wagon and something to pull it. This was something people who wanted to go and had the ability to save saved up for. The poor factory worker was lucky to have enough to eat let alone enough to buy wagons and oxen. The factory system was designed to trap just as fully as slavery, but just differently. If you were male and young and didn't mind if you died instead, later you could work on the railroad tracks. But the idea anyone who wasn't a slave could just decide to 'go west' is false. If you had a farm which didn't produce and a wagon and oxen, then maybe you could do it. Lacking that, you probably waited for the railroad to be complete where you could buy a cheap ticket and ride there. The majority of immigrants in factories did not have the chance until the cheap fares on trains gave them the chance.
And when did this happen? AFTER the civil war. POST 1865.
Point being, the poor and used up to that point, largely didn't have the wherewithall to leave either.
Many Irish females were actually sent. Virginia has a lot of multigenerationally multiracially mixed (MGM mixed) race communities that came about and resulted from African males mixing freely and consensually with Irish females during and throughout the colonial period.
Again, the usage of terms like "slaves" and "servants" were very imprecise in the early/mid 17th century. The mass transportation of Irish and other rebels as "slaves" was primarily done under Cromwell's Protectorate. Under Charles II and his successors, rebels and criminals were transported as indentured servants, not as "slaves", with the length of the bond depending upon the crime, including life terms.
By the late 17th century, the term "slave" only referred to blacks, and slavery had morphed into chattel slavery. It did not apply to whites. The English, Irish and Scots poor who came to the colonies as bond servants were never slaves. That blacks and whites and Native Americans produced mixed race children doesn't change anything. That mixed race children got their status of slave or free from their mothers also doesn't change the fact that by 1700, chattel slavery in the British colonies only applied to people of African descent.
While not in name, the poor were used as fully as slaves, with the out that if they happened to die there were ten more waiting to take their place. Mines were frequently death traps, and the housing they lived in was designed to make sure they could not leave. It was a form of debt slavery. The railroads prefered Irish workers because they were sufficicently desperate enough they'd work for practically nothing. Its believed that at least one was killed for every mile of track laid. They were often buried under the track, of if not in mass graves along the side. No names, no sign they were there. There was no need for the companies to worry since more bodies could be brought in without delay.
In the south, one of the most dangerous jobs was digging canals. Slaves were NOT used for this task as too many ended up being killed. They used poorly paid usually Irish immigrants since there was no value in them being left alive.
I think had the slaves not been freed by the war eventually the south would have moved on to Northern industrial mode, where they hired the healthy only, did not have to deal with the old, the sick, or anyone too young. They paid little and resistance to rules meant you were fired and someone who wouldn't replaced you. There are many ways to use people. Slavery is just one.
It was an *age* when those with power used those without power. Some were slaves, some were held under debt, and some were desperate and expendable. Servants were frequently beaten in places they were not slaves and expected to be as the furnature. And if they didn't want to they could go and starve since there was someone else who would.
This was the the age when poor British children were forced to climb up hot chimneys and 'sweep' them with their clothes. If they lived, they could go beg for their food. If they were burned or died they were just so much trash.
I think it would be good not to teach about just slavery but put it in perspective to the overall practices of the time, not only in the US, but in Europe and their colonies. When you look at it that way slavery as practiced in the south was just a different form of coertion and not the only one which should be recognized as a fixture of its time.
Again, the usage of terms like "slaves" and "servants" were very imprecise in the early/mid 17th century. The mass transportation of Irish and other rebels as "slaves" was primarily done under Cromwell's Protectorate. Under Charles II and his successors, rebels and criminals were transported as indentured servants, not as "slaves", with the length of the bond depending upon the crime, including life terms.
By the late 17th century, the term "slave" only referred to blacks, and slavery had morphed into chattel slavery. It did not apply to whites. The English, Irish and Scots poor who came to the colonies as bond servants were never slaves. That blacks and whites and Native Americans produced mixed race children doesn't change anything. That mixed race children got their status of slave or free from their mothers also doesn't change the fact that by 1700, chattel slavery in the British colonies only applied to people of African descent.
Many slaves were considered treated as white because of their appearance.
Because the civil rights movement was not that long ago. Let's face it black people are still suspicious of white people and vice versa. How many friends do you have that are of a different ethnic background? America should be ashamed of the way Native Americans were/are treated, America should be ashamed of what it has become and this country should be ashamed of the clowns we VOTE FOR and let stay in Washington. The transfer of wealth will continue.
I fail to see what the bolded sentences have to do with the topic.
Plain and simple, slavery did not really end in 1865. Many African Americans were as firmly chained to a plantation after 1865 as they had been before 1860. Others were deprived of their rights as well as their dignity all over the country. Many suffered from what can only be described as terrorism, and that continued with the tacit approval of the all levels of government until at least the mid-1960s.
In reality, it's not slavery that haunts this country but dejure and defacto segregation, and institutional racism. Dejure segregation (Jim Crow) has only been dealt with finally within the last 50 years, and defacto segregation and institutional racism remain festering problems. I won't even go into general bigotry that runs rampant among some groups in some places.
Another thing people may not know is that the reason why the midwest is practically devoid of "flava" or blacks is because those states and towns were known as "Sundown Towns".
Blacks were told that they had to be out of town by "sundown" or very nasty things would happen.
Many blacks wanted to live in these places. My grandfather told me this. It was very well-known, but if you ask whites today from those towns, they'll play like they have no clue of what you're talking about.
I fail to see what the bolded sentences have to do with the topic.
Plain and simple, slavery did not really end in 1865. Many African Americans were as firmly chained to a plantation after 1865 as they had been before 1860. Others were deprived of their rights as well as their dignity all over the country. Many suffered from what can only be described as terrorism, and that continued with the tacit approval of the all levels of government until at least the mid-1960s.
In reality, it's not slavery that haunts this country but dejure and defacto segregation, and institutional racism. Dejure segregation (Jim Crow) has only been dealt with finally within the last 50 years, and defacto segregation and institutional racism remain festering problems. I won't even go into general bigotry that runs rampant among some groups in some places.
You fail to see how government (you know the people that govern this country) and wealth (if I am not mistaken African Americans make up the largest % of those living in poverty) have to do with this thread? Go on bored housewife I wish I had a PHD and keep talking out of your backside. Stop copying other people's work and passing it off as your own. Was I too curt for you?
Many whites (and others) believe that they are inherently superior to people of African descent.
Sometimes, while I'm awaiting service in a store, near the cash register, a white customer will stand alongside me (and not in the back). I do not understand why they refuse to form a line. I however find it interesting that in most instances, the cashier will often ask the white person, "how can she/he assist them?" On occasion, the white person will admit that I was next in line, but many other times they will just pretend that I'm not there and proceed to order.
Also, I've been in instances where a white person will just bump into me and keep walking without apologizing, as if I don't even exist.
I've noticed that many of them have become ruder, now that I no longer wear processed relaxed hair. I wear my curly fro' and they seem utterly shocked and dismayed, that I don't walk around trying to emulate their look. I love who I am, and I fully embrace myself in all of my natural beauty.
Pictures please or we won't belive you
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
